The fact that Woodson started life with a club foot only to become a 4.45 runner is a function of god-given physical ability. No amount of will or work gets you to that speed without what you were born with, club foot or not. Thousands and thousands of players without any physical impairment have worked harder and "willed" harder, and failed, and never had an opportunity to be a leader on the football field, though no fault of their own.

Second, it's only in retrospect that Woodson is viewed as a clubhouse leader. He was always characterized as a somewhat introverted guy, a man of few words, a man playing out on the the island metaphorically and literally. That's not a criticism; elite individual playmaking is often the marginal difference between winning and losing.

Late in the 2010 run it was reported that MM had to prod Woodson to take a more vocal role. I believe it was at that time he addressed the clubhouse for the first time. I also wonder if MM's prodding had more to do with the affect it would have on Woodson than the affect on the team...if he was forced to assume a leadership position it might temper his gambling and freelancing which was on the razor's edge between playmaking and defensive disruption. He was the centerpiece of 2010's organized chaos, on the edge of spinning out into something less effective (see 2011).

This is not to say Woodson was not a leader on the field. That would be hard to determine without some kind of insider commentary beyond "he's a leader". When things are going badly, confidence is flagging and confusion is entering the equation, the guy who can step in that huddle, interject a firm and confident focus, and then back it up with performance qualifies as a leader. The next time circumstances go against the team, the prior performance backs up the new words.

I've got a real problem with these new age definitions of "leadership", at least in the real adult world. There is certainly nothing wrong with thinking everybody should strive to maximize their potential, and that the will and effort to do so will be respected by thinking individuals, be they subordinates, peers or superiors. But that's not leadership. Further, being an example to others (bosses certainly value this highly in their subordinates) does not make a person a "leader" either...it makes them an example.

And while it can be argued that everyone has the potential to be a "leader" to one degree or another, it is impossible for everybody to do so. If everybody is a leader, then there are no followers, in which case there are no leaders. It's something of zero sum game.

DevilDon's military example is the worst he could have possibly chosen. These are command-and-control organizations like no other, with the possible exception of special forces actively engaged in a mission. There are leaders giving orders, there are followers following them. A Silicon Valley start-up with a very flat organization would make for a better argument...but even these organizations typically are steered by charismatic founders and their visions.

Leaders actively influence the behavior of others, and back it with personal performance.

Click to expand...

You provide the perfect assessment there.
Nobody expected Charles Woodson to be the leader but he became one. He was coached to be one and he was able to learn and use those abilities that define leadership. Charles Woodson wasn't always a leader, he was taught and cajoled to be one. It has no bearing whatsoever on his physical gifts. If they were so inherent in his leadership qualities then he would have been considered a leader long, long ago.
There is no finer example than military leadership. They are in fact command and control organizations and there is less likely to be a more obvious example of leadership's impression.
It would be impossible to define any more "new age" leadership expressions and talk about the military in the same breath. It's history is far older than our great nation and far older than any statesman can hope to have made a difference. In fact, without the military leadership one might question whether Winston Churchill would have had an impact in the world.
Even in a silicon valley start up with any kind of hope for success will have to have leaders. And even you must admit that athletic talent is on the far end of necessities for those jobs.
You have pointed to the worst possible example. Literally thousands of those type of businesses have gone under due to lack of leadership. Perhaps what you are trying to say is that athletic, overachievers are more likely to become leaders? Yep, I think I agree and it's also more likely that ex-military are more likely to become leaders. Why? because it is part and parcel of that job. That is why employers are more likely to employ veterans.
That doesn't diminish the fact that any single pedestrian can become a leader.

You are stating something as a fact that is only your opinion. No matter how many times you insist your opinion is correct, it's just and only that: An opinion. For example, in my opinion for a player in the Packers (or any team pro sports) locker room to be a leader of the team as a whole or one of the units (O, D or STs), he must at a minimum be a starter on that unit. A second or third string player can't lead from the sidelines. And being a starter requires a certain amount of physical - and mental - acuity. If you are consistent you have to argue that the last player on the roster - #53 has the same chance to be the leader of the team as Aaron Rodgers and that IMO is foolish on its face.

(BTW, IMO Lincoln "was Lincoln" first because of his mental acuity: His innate intelligence was a necessary prerequisite to his ability as a leader.)

BTW, here's a learned trait that separates us: I won't "continue to point it out to you until you get it in your head that" you continue to pretend your opinion is a fact. It's apparent to anyone here who cares to know. And back to the subject of this thread: I don't know who, if anyone, takes Woodson's spot as a team leader. But I'll bet it won't be a guy promoted from the practice squad in mid-season no matter how much time he's devoted to improving his leadership abilities.

Click to expand...

You want to express that this is my opinion. I wish I had come up with it Thx, but it's not mine. It's the highest order of leadership's opinion that these are the qualities that define the term leadership.
Now you are welcome to think otherwise and I'm sure there are others who will follow you blindly down your alley of opinion but it will never change the fact that you are inherently wrong.
You continue to define leadership in terms of athletic ability and that is so incorrect and I'd shown you how wrong it is and then you continue to argue the basis of your premise.
I'm delighted to know you have a first hand knowledge of the qualities that made Lincoln likely the 1st or 2nd most liked presidents with Washington. History doesn't provide much in the way as I know about our presidents IQ so if you have documents that show Lincoln as a mental giant I'd love to view them.
But just this once please recognize that nobody will remember Lincoln for his intelligence as for his perseverance. I might be wrong though, many fans here thinks TT has done a poor job.
If you know anything about history, it's not for his famous smarts that people admire Lincoln ThxJack!!!!
And yea, not a guy promoted from the practice squad but before he was learned in the art, Charles Woodson would be your last pick as the locker room guy based on past experience.
It's like this ThxJack: You have no more idea than I do so pretending to speak with any kind of authority on leadership just rings untrue. What I've tried to say is that any single guy in that locker room can be the next leader and I am correct.
If you can't see him then he's not an elite performer righto?

You provide the perfect assessment there.
Nobody expected Charles Woodson to be the leader but he became one. He was coached to be one and he was able to learn and use those abilities that define leadership. Charles Woodson wasn't always a leader, he was taught and cajoled to be one. It has no bearing whatsoever on his physical gifts. If they were so inherent in his leadership qualities then he would have been considered a leader long, long ago.
There is no finer example than military leadership. They are in fact command and control organizations and there is less likely to be a more obvious example of leadership's impression.
It would be impossible to define any more "new age" leadership expressions and talk about the military in the same breath. It's history is far older than our great nation and far older than any statesman can hope to have made a difference. In fact, without the military leadership one might question whether Winston Churchill would have had an impact in the world.
Even in a silicon valley start up with any kind of hope for success will have to have leaders. And even you must admit that athletic talent is on the far end of necessities for those jobs.
You have pointed to the worst possible example. Literally thousands of those type of businesses have gone under due to lack of leadership. Perhaps what you are trying to say is that athletic, overachievers are more likely to become leaders? Yep, I think I agree and it's also more likely that ex-military are more likely to become leaders. Why? because it is part and parcel of that job. That is why employers are more likely to employ veterans.
That doesn't diminish the fact that any single pedestrian can become a leader.

Click to expand...

You've distorted what I said. You're now arguing against a straw man. I can hardly get past your first line...I questioned the depth and breadth of leadership provided by somebody coerced into the role...including Woodson...that did not even require reading between the lines.

For you to call a guy who is coerced to lead a "leader" contradicts (as best I can tell) the rest of your argument.

You fail to recognize the internal contradictions in your arguments...the new age/self-actualization portion of your argument is viewed in the military as clap trap except perhaps for some small corners of the Academies.

I gave you an "old". I would have clicked "futile to the point of exhaustion" if there was such a button.

Besides, what ever happened to "brevity is the soul wit", which you mistakenly assumed "the Bard" meant unironically?

I've done it many times before, and I'll do it many times in the future...leave you with the last word.

You are stating something as a fact that is only your opinion. No matter how many times you insist your opinion is correct, it's just and only that: An opinion. For example, in my opinion for a player in the Packers (or any team pro sports) locker room to be a leader of the team as a whole or one of the units (O, D or STs), he must at a minimum be a starter on that unit. A second or third string player can't lead from the sidelines. And being a starter requires a certain amount of physical - and mental - acuity. If you are consistent you have to argue that the last player on the roster - #53 has the same chance to be the leader of the team as Aaron Rodgers and that IMO is foolish on its face.

(BTW, IMO Lincoln "was Lincoln" first because of his mental acuity: His innate intelligence was a necessary prerequisite to his ability as a leader.)

BTW, here's a learned trait that separates us: I won't "continue to point it out to you until you get it in your head that" you continue to pretend your opinion is a fact. It's apparent to anyone here who cares to know. And back to the subject of this thread: I don't know who, if anyone, takes Woodson's spot as a team leader. But I'll bet it won't be a guy promoted from the practice squad in mid-season no matter how much time he's devoted to improving his leadership abilities.

Click to expand...

What a waste of time. You yourself are pointing out that your theory is a theory. You quote it, you promote it and then tell me that my premise is an opinion and only my opinion. Read your quote... determination and sociability being leading qualities, tell me how determination and sociability are a born qualities?
Further ThxJack, you knock my opinion on the basis that it's only one man's opinion and then proffer yours as an example of why we might see things your way. It does sound a bit like a one way street doesn't it?
Last, you've given no reason to believe that a player must be a starter to be a leader when I've explained that coaches often do not have sterling athletic pasts. A bit of a quandary for your side isn't it?
Lincoln isn't remembered so much for his intelligence than his fortitude Jack. He was a self taught man and was repulsed at the things his father was. Pretty much that puts all he did on the determination table does it not?
You can bet all you own on whether it will be a practice squad leader who is the locker room leader. In fact, when I played football it didn't ever occur to me to look to another player for leadership. I was doing my thing and playing my game. I'd bet, and I'd bet a handsome amount, that is what drives those players. They play because they love the game and the motivation to do well has as much to do with personal pride as it does with Charles Woodson's lack or ownership of a SB ring.

Obsessed much Devil? Two responses to the same post? LOL Repeatedly posting things like, “You might want to disagree but you would be wrong”, “I did and will continue to point it out to you until you get it in your head”, “…and I am correct”, and “it will never change the fact that you are inherently wrong” reminds me of posters who profess how great their knowledge of football is on boards like this. I have yet to find such a poster who was actually really well versed in football. IOW, if your argument isn’t strong enough to convince others, professing it is as you have just looks foolish.

Because you presented your opinion as a fact I pointed to a theory which contradicts your opinion. I even underlined the relevant portion for you: “This theory postulates that people are either born or not born with the qualities that predispose them to success in leadership roles”. I believe “certain inherited qualities, such as personality and cognitive ability” underlie leadership. But I’m not so foolish as to present that opinion as a fact. That’s what you are doing – see the difference? I’m fine with each of us holding different opinions, you’re obsessed with the idea your opinion/theory is a fact.

IMO you’ve argued yourself into a corner posting, “Nobody would dispute who is the leader in any crowded room.” And then “when I played football it didn't ever occur to me to look to another player for leadership.” OK, OK I just thought that obvious contradiction was funny – I mean apparently you would have disputed who the leader was on your team because you admit to being oblivious to the leadership of others. But seriously, in this thread you’ve confused leadership with inspiration and perseverance. You’ve signed on to the idea that every player on a 53 man NFL roster has an equal opportunity to be a team leader, no matter his status on the team. Player #53 has just as good a chance as Rodgers to be the team leader, right? (BTW, common sense and years of observation should have dissuaded you of that idea. Also, the athletic ability of a coach isn’t important because he already has a degree of leadership status on the team, but it is important to the status of players.) And you’ve posted, “It's the highest order of leadership's opinion that these are the qualities that define the term leadership.” HUH??!! “Leadership’s opinion?”

How sad you don’t remember Lincoln for his great intellect. And how foolish of you to post, “But just this once please recognize that nobody will remember Lincoln for his intelligence as for his perseverance” I have studied history and I remember Lincoln for both. And of course I never alleged to have “first hand knowledge” of Lincoln – that straw man is just another example of the weakness of your argument. While I don’t “have documents that show Lincoln as a mental giant” if you’d “love to view them” you can view them online. Retrieve both of his inaugural addresses, particularly the second one. And re-read the Gettysburg Address, perhaps the most brilliantly concise speech ever given on American soil. But those are the easy ones. If you haven’t already, read his speech at Cooper Union. He brilliantly dissects Stephen Douglas’ assertion about the founders’ views on slavery. Unlike modern politicians, those are all the words of Lincoln, not a speech writer. It's no secret to those who have read Lincoln's words he was indeed a mental giant.

Obsessed much Devil? Two responses to the same post? LOL Repeatedly posting things like, “You might want to disagree but you would be wrong”, “I did and will continue to point it out to you until you get it in your head”, “…and I am correct”, and “it will never change the fact that you are inherently wrong” reminds me of posters who profess how great their knowledge of football is on boards like this. I have yet to find such a poster who was actually really well versed in football. IOW, if your argument isn’t strong enough to convince others, professing it is as you have just looks foolish

Click to expand...

I have never professed to be a great mind in football. I'm a regular guy who knows good and bad ideas when I see them. We're talking leadership here champ and that is something that I know quite a bit about.
I don't care if you are comfortable with me being confident in my view. I'm not here to give you warm and fuzzies about your positions ThxJack and I am not looking to you to provide me with the same.
Also, what makes you the end all in determining who knows football? What makes you think your thoughts are the defining factor in who knows football? Because it agrees with a sportswriter you seem to have a warm spot in your heart for?

Because you presented your opinion as a fact I pointed to a theory which contradicts your opinion. I even underlined the relevant portion for you: “This theory postulates that people are either born or not born with the qualities that predispose them to success in leadership roles”. I believe “certain inherited qualities, such as personality and cognitive ability” underlie leadership. But I’m not so foolish as to present that opinion as a fact. That’s what you are doing – see the difference? I’m fine with each of us holding different opinions, you’re obsessed with the idea your opinion/theory is a fact.

Click to expand...

OK, but you're not admitting that it isn't predisposed to being a leader. It's not a requirement. My point is positive and probably, anybody, I mean anybody can become a leader, with or without certain DNA markers and you try to use science to show that it's wrong. All science can say is that it's not there to say for certain yet my premise holds water because the world is littered with leaders of underachieving physical tools.

“Nobody would dispute who is the leader in any crowded room.” And then “when I played football it didn't ever occur to me to look to another player for leadership.” OK, OK I just thought that obvious contradiction was funny – I mean apparently you would have disputed who the leader was on your team because you admit to being oblivious to the leadership of others. But seriously, in this thread you’ve confused leadership with inspiration and perseverance. You’ve signed on to the idea that every player on a 53 man NFL roster has an equal opportunity to be a team leader, no matter his status on the team. Player #53 has just as good a chance as Rodgers to be the team leader, right? (BTW, common sense and years of observation should have dissuaded you of that idea. Also, the athletic ability of a coach isn’t important because he already has a degree of leadership status on the team, but it is important to the status of players.) And you’ve posted, “It's the highest order of leadership's opinion that these are the qualities that define the term leadership.” HUH??!! “Leadership’s opinion?”

Not at all THxJack, it's obvious to any person who leaders are. Recognizing leadership doesn't mean you're at a void or need that leadership. Think about it, you just said because I didn't need leadership I was oblivious to it. I am here to tell you that you always recognize it.
Yesssss, you don't have to be a starter to be a team captain. So athletic ability of player matters but not a coach? You don't seem to have all of your ducks in a row ThxJack.
You either need the athletic ability or you don't. Coaches defy that rule so you don't have a ton of proof behind that idea.

But just this once please recognize that nobody will remember Lincoln for his intelligence as for his perseverance” I have studied history and I remember Lincoln for both. And of course I never alleged to have “first hand knowledge” of Lincoln – that straw man is just another example of the weakness of your argument. While I don’t “have documents that show Lincoln as a mental giant” if you’d “love to view them” you can view them online. Retrieve both of his inaugural addresses, particularly the second one. And re-read the Gettysburg Address, perhaps the most brilliantly concise speech ever given on American soil. But those are the easy ones. If you haven’t already, read his speech at Cooper Union. He brilliantly dissects Stephen Douglas’ assertion about the founders’ views on slavery. Unlike modern politicians, those are all the words of Lincoln, not a speech writer. It's no secret to those who have read Lincoln's words he was indeed a mental giant.

Click to expand...

It's not just me ThxJack, most people in believe he set out to free the slaves. It's not a matter of what you want to believe but how it actually played out. It's not foolish to post that champ, it's the truth. People don't remember Lincoln for his speaches or his intellect. You don't have to be steady with that, it's the way that it is.
Remember I'm a veteran so I know the Gettysburg Address and I'm familiar with the Lincoln/Douglas debates. Here's the thing that bothers me about your position ThxJack, you believe your position to the point of obsession. You cant know with any certainty that Lincoln's words were his own. What we CAN know and what we CAN be certain of it that his actions were his own and that he was a leader in action moreso than words.
His words were only later understood for their value. It took a bullet to get that point across.
Leaders are made, not born my friend. Lincoln didn't lead by his words nor his intellect, he was remembered for his determination and shame on you for casting aside that side of that man. Being a study of history begs you ask for more than the words and stats, you need to get inside of the mind in that day and age.
You seem ill prepared to look outside of the box at this point THxJack.

Well champ, you apparently missed the analogy I used in my opening paragraph. You repeatedly feeling the need to post “I’m right!!” reminds me of posters who … And even in your opening paragraph you again profess to knowing a lot about leadership. Again, if your posts don’t prove that, saying so doesn’t help your cause.

My noting what you said about leaders being obvious and then your being oblivious to leadership was a joke, champ: “OK, OK I just thought that obvious contradiction was funny.” Followed by “Seriously…” was the clue.

BTW, you really can’t distinguish between the roles of players on a team and coaches regarding leadership? “So athletic ability of player matters but not a coach?” is missing the point about as badly as one can, champ.

Regarding Lincoln again you posted nobody will remember Lincoln for his intellect. And now you’ve added no one remembers his speeches. The guy who wrote and presented the Gettysburg Address! BTW there is a lot of historical support for the notion that Lincoln wrote that speech himself. Lincoln’s intellect was an integral part of him as a lawyer and as President. I’m not casting aside Lincoln’s determination or courage, or his generosity to the South after victory was apparent. Or the great personal pain he overcame in his life. You are the one casting aside a critical aspect of Lincoln, his intellect.

Finally, and this is my last post on this subject, you have got to be kidding about who is obsessed here, champ. You have been the one all along insisting your opinion is a fact. You are the one posting “nobody will remember Lincoln for his intellect” (which is funny since I obviously do). Regarding being obsessed, you need to look in the mirror, champ.